celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I didn't say it was "necessary". I simply said meant that to maintain honour and prciniples that some courses of action should be ruled out even if we think this may slightly increase the risk of terrorism, as is the case in hand.
What you said:
Sometimes it is better to allow some to die than engage in complete dishonour and abandon all principles and civility. Anything else is the greed of Jacobins, scheming calculators who have no time for virtue and think only in terms of the most base of factors.
Allowing some to die is not risking their death, but accepting their death. It is justifying their death.
So, yes, you DID say it was "necessary".
Silly is not answering the simple question.Your situation was silly. I would hardly be allowed to question detainees if my family was being directly threatened nor are any of these cases in the 24-like scenrios you keep positing or implying.
I shall rephrase: if you will allow some to die for your honor and your principles, will you allow family members (wife, son, daughter) to die for those principles? Just answer "yes" or "no".